agentleFS
RojiosRojios/everything-claude-code/skills/unified-notifications-ops/SKILL.md

unified-notifications-ops

Skill1 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub

Operate notifications as one ECC-native workflow across GitHub, Linear, desktop alerts, hooks, and connected communication surfaces. Use when the real problem is alert routing, deduplication, escalation, or inbox collapse.

5 other projects use a version of this, 3 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

19 rules. 17 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 17

    Common

    Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 0

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Common:

    Use this skill when the real problem is not a missing ping.

    line 9
  2. Common:

    Start from what already exists:

    line 27
  3. Common:

    Prefer ECC-native orchestration over telling the user to adopt a separate notification product.

    line 34
  4. Common:

    never expose tokens, secrets, webhook secrets, or internal identifiers

    line 38
  5. Common:

    default to digest-first when interruption cost is unclear

    line 44
  6. Common:

    do not fan out every event to every channel

    line 45
  7. Common:

    if the real fix is better issue triage, hook policy, or project flow, say so explicitly

    line 46
  8. Common:

    Treat the lane as:

    line 50
  9. Common:

    If the workspace has no severity model, build one before proposing automation.

    line 69
  10. Common:

    Call out what ECC already owns.

    line 82
  11. Common:

    should this interrupt, batch, or just log?

    line 89
  12. Common:

    If ECC already has the primitive, prefer:

    line 119
  13. Common:

    prefer one strong lane over many weak ones

    line 165
  14. Common:

    prefer digests for medium and low-signal updates

    line 166
  15. Common:

    prefer hooks when the signal should emit automatically

    line 167
  16. Common:

    prefer operator skills when the work is triage, routing, and review-first decision-making

    line 168
  17. Very specific:

    prefer project-flow-ops when the root cause is backlog / PR coordination rather than alerts

    line 169
  18. Very specific:

    prefer workspace-surface-audit when the user first needs a source inventory

    line 170
  19. Common:

    if desktop notifications are enough, do not invent an unnecessary external bridge

    line 171

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Unified Notifications Ops

Use this skill when the real problem is not a missing ping. The real problem is a fragmented notification system.

The job is to turn scattered events into one operator surface with:

  • clear severity
  • clear ownership
  • clear routing
  • clear follow-up action

When to Use

  • the user wants a unified notification lane across GitHub, Linear, local hooks, desktop alerts, chat, or email
  • CI failures, review requests, issue updates, and operator events are arriving in disconnected places
  • the current setup creates noise instead of action
  • the user wants to consolidate overlapping notification branches or backlog proposals into one ECC-native lane
  • the workspace already has hooks, MCPs, or connected tools, but no coherent notification policy

Preferred Surface

Start from what already exists:

  • GitHub issues, PRs, reviews, comments, and CI
  • Linear issue/project movement
  • local hook events and session lifecycle signals
  • desktop notification primitives
  • connected email/chat surfaces when they actually exist

Prefer ECC-native orchestration over telling the user to adopt a separate notification product.

Non-Negotiable Rules

  • never expose tokens, secrets, webhook secrets, or internal identifiers
  • separate:
    • event source
    • severity
    • routing channel
    • operator action
  • default to digest-first when interruption cost is unclear
  • do not fan out every event to every channel
  • if the real fix is better issue triage, hook policy, or project flow, say so explicitly

Event Pipeline

Treat the lane as:

  1. Capture the event
  2. Classify urgency and owner
  3. Route to the correct channel
  4. Collapse duplicates and low-signal churn
  5. Attach the next operator action

The goal is fewer, better notifications.

Default Severity Model

ClassExamplesDefault handling
Criticalbroken default-branch CI, security issue, blocked release, failed deployinterrupt now
Highreview requested, failing PR, owner-blocking handoffsame-day alert
Mediumissue state changes, notable comments, backlog movementdigest or queue
Lowrepeat successes, routine churn, redundant lifecycle markerssuppress or fold

If the workspace has no severity model, build one before proposing automation.

Workflow

1. Inventory the current surface

List:

  • event sources
  • current channels
  • existing hooks/scripts that emit alerts
  • duplicate paths for the same event
  • silent failure cases where important things are not being surfaced

Call out what ECC already owns.

2. Decide what deserves interruption

For each event family, answer:

  • who needs to know?
  • how fast do they need to know?
  • should this interrupt, batch, or just log?

Use these defaults:

  • interrupt for release, CI, security, and owner-blocking events
  • digest for medium-signal updates
  • log-only for telemetry and low-signal lifecycle markers

3. Collapse duplicates before adding channels

Look for:

  • the same PR event appearing in GitHub, Linear, and local logs
  • repeated hook notifications for the same failure
  • comments or status churn that should be summarized instead of forwarded raw
  • channels that duplicate each other without adding a better action path

Prefer:

  • one canonical summary
  • one owner
  • one primary channel
  • one fallback path

4. Design the ECC-native workflow

For each real notification need, define:

  • source
  • gate
  • shape: immediate alert, digest, queue, or dashboard-only
  • channel
  • action

If ECC already has the primitive, prefer:

  • a skill for operator triage
  • a hook for automatic emission/enforcement
  • an agent for delegated classification
  • an MCP/connector only when a real bridge is missing

5. Return an action-biased design

End with:

  • what to keep
  • what to suppress
  • what to merge
  • what ECC should wrap next

Output Format

CURRENT SURFACE
- sources
- channels
- duplicates
- gaps

EVENT MODEL
- critical
- high
- medium
- low

ROUTING PLAN
- source -> channel
- why
- operator owner

CONSOLIDATION
- suppress
- merge
- canonical summaries

NEXT ECC MOVE
- skill / hook / agent / MCP
- exact workflow to build next

Recommendation Rules

  • prefer one strong lane over many weak ones
  • prefer digests for medium and low-signal updates
  • prefer hooks when the signal should emit automatically
  • prefer operator skills when the work is triage, routing, and review-first decision-making
  • prefer project-flow-ops when the root cause is backlog / PR coordination rather than alerts
  • prefer workspace-surface-audit when the user first needs a source inventory
  • if desktop notifications are enough, do not invent an unnecessary external bridge

Good Use Cases

  • "We have GitHub, Linear, and local hook alerts, but no single operator flow"
  • "Our CI failures are noisy and people ignore them"
  • "I want one notification policy across Claude, OpenCode, and Codex surfaces"
  • "Figure out what should interrupt versus land in a digest"
  • "Collapse overlapping notification PR ideas into one canonical ECC lane"

Related Skills

  • workspace-surface-audit
  • project-flow-ops
  • github-ops
  • knowledge-ops
  • customer-billing-ops when the notification pain is billing/customer operations rather than engineering

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.